ALL QF's 330's to get lay flat Business seating - Including Domestic

[Quickstatus]

Actually does appear possible to fit QF5/6 into the QF107/108 pattern without changing the existing times, so quite possibly that could be the plan if the seat maps are suggesting that.

Doesn't leave much downtime for maintenance however - just a 3hr window.

QF107 SYD 1350 PEK 2240 (95-100 min turn)
QF108 PEK 0015/20 SYD 1455 (100 min turn)
QF5 SYD 1635 2200 SIN (115 min turn)
QF6 SIN 2355 SYD 1050 (180 min turn)

A routing which may not be reliable in the long run AKA QF10/9

 

[Melburnian1]

The only missing point in moa999's analysis of the likely QF107/108 roster is 'how many multiples of four days will the aircraft usually stay on this roster?'

If it is only one stint of four days then a lengthier maintenance break than the three hours (180 minutes) moa999 discusses, so much the better.

However if it is two stints x four days, bad!

In any case, Quickstatus' suggestion that this may become a QF10 to QF9 situation is prescient.

Despite padding in the timetables that was introduced a year ago, QF9 between DXB and LHR still only has a FlightStats rating of 1.8 out of 5, and that is with the benefit of extra padding between DXB and LHR. 11 of the last 61 flights have been 'very late' or 'excessive' in their unpunctuality - terms that FlightStats does not appear to ever define, but we can assume that they are both delays of way more than 15 minutes at destination.

One hopes that these SYD - PEK flights were not introduced merely to 'beat VA to it' and therefore poorly thought out, though I have not seen the proposed new VA schedules applying from mid 2017. VA may not yet have released exact proposed times.

 

[Awesom Andy]

One hopes that these SYD - PEK flights were not introduced merely to 'beat VA to it' and therefore poorly thought out, though I have not seen the proposed new VA schedules applying from mid 2017. VA may not yet have released exact proposed times.

If that was the intention, I don't think they would put on a product that would help drive pax away to the competitors when they eventually launch their flights.

 

[moa999]

Two days you mean.
SYD-PEK-SYD-SIN-SYD is a 48hr pattern on those timings.

Then once or twice per week per aircraft, it skips the SYD-SIN-SYD leg providing a longer gap of up to 20hrs for catch up/longer maintenance items/deep clean/ domestic services.

Certainly make QF5/6 less attractive though both from a product and likely schedule performance.

 

[Happy Trails]

Anything that keeps them out of BKK is fine by me.:mrgreen:

 

[eric2011]

thank you, i am new at this and I am still learning

As said, T80 is 80 hours prior to departure and it is when QF (don't know about others) open up (usually unless something special is happening) blocked seats to the "under-priveledged"), and then as you would be aware T24 is the online check-in opening for QF and T48 for VA. Others may correct me but I believe at T3 online checkin closes (QF) and checkin is needed to be done at the airport

 

[serfty]

IME T-80 is generally only relevant to domestic flights.

 

[kermatu]

Two days you mean.
SYD-PEK-SYD-SIN-SYD is a 48hr pattern on those timings.

Then once or twice per week per aircraft, it skips the SYD-SIN-SYD leg providing a longer gap of up to 20hrs for catch up/longer maintenance items/deep clean/ domestic services.

Certainly make QF5/6 less attractive though both from a product and likely schedule performance.

I'll continue to use the EK MEL-SIN service as a result

 

[moa999]

I'll continue to use the EK MEL-SIN service as a result

QF81 should be doable with an early MEL departure, depending on how much FL time you want.

 

[kermatu]

QF81 should be doable with an early MEL departure, depending on how much FL time you want.

Because I usually connect from Canberra I prefer later flights out of SYD or MEL were I can also get most of a day's work in. Flying back to MEL or BNE (rather than SYD) also fine - so the return could still be on QF - though I have been upgraded to F on EK on this route so that's an attraction. The direct Singapore Airlines option will be used too (but that's nothing to do with QF refurbed flights or not - simply convenience).

This is a great thread by the way - without it I would have happily assumed all A330 flights next year would be on the new suites. Pretty poor form from QF not to be upfront about the change in plans. I guess there is still time, and from its point of view why advertise a 'failure' particularly if it was never actually promised. Don't mean to divert this thread - just my views.

 

[Flyerqf]

QF19 to MNL was operated by VH-EBN on Saturday. First time this route has been operated by the refurb A332. Normally this route is A333 or non refurb A332.

 

[eric2011]

IME T-80 is generally only relevant to domestic flights.

I pretty much thought the same however on my QF3 & QF4 flights earlier this month I did notice on EF a few strange things happen to seating arrangements at T80. I already had the seats I wanted so didn't pay too much attention to what was happening but looked like the 1 or 2 unallocated seats moved as others picked and changed and 2 blocked seats came available

 

[MEL_Traveller]

... why advertise a 'failure' particularly if it was never actually promised.

Never 'promised' if you discount every press release, route launch, uniform launch, aircraft launch, and every '~', '#', and '^' footnote in newsletters stating the suites would be on every 330 by the end of 2016

 

[madrooster]

I pretty much thought the same however on my QF3 & QF4 flights earlier this month I did notice on EF a few strange things happen to seating arrangements at T80. I already had the seats I wanted so didn't pay too much attention to what was happening but looked like the 1 or 2 unallocated seats moved as others picked and changed and 2 blocked seats came available

This is normal behaviour for QF when the flight is close to capacity or at capacity.

 

[moa999]

stating the suites would be on every 330 by the end of 2016

Which may well have been the case if the plan was to retire EBG/EBL

 

[whughes3]

The sad fact is that the refurb of the 332's has been totally bungled. They are now lumbered with a large group of a/c which are on the one hand, gross overkill for the majority of domestic routes, but inadequate for international routes. Unfortunately, rather typical of QF planning in recent times.

 

[kermatu]

The sad fact is that the refurb of the 332's has been totally bungled. They are now lumbered with a large group of a/c which on the one hand, gross overkill for the majority of domestic routes, but inadequate for international routes. Unfortunately, rather typical of QF planning in recent times.

I'd love it if they put some on the trans-Tasman routes. No idea how feasible that is technically or with respect to the EK tie-up. But I'd be very happy and give there are often two 737 services ex-SYD within 90 minutes I assume there's enough custom.

 

[wenglock.mok]

The sad fact is that the refurb of the 332's has been totally bungled. They are now lumbered with a large group of a/c which on the one hand, gross overkill for the majority of domestic routes, but inadequate for international routes. Unfortunately, rather typical of QF planning in recent times.

I am guessing that while the 332s are meant to have the longer range of the two (332/333), their smaller cabin floor area means the airline has much less flexibility with configuring them. Creating a configuration for longer haul flights would mean they would be far too un-dense for domestic flights, which they would have been planned to do for more than half of their time...

 

[Quickstatus]

The sad fact is that the refurb of the 332's has been totally bungled. They are now lumbered with a large group of a/c which on the one hand, gross overkill for the majority of domestic routes, but inadequate for international routes. Unfortunately, rather typical of QF planning in recent times.

I see it a different way. I think The A330 was an incredibly special sweetener deal tacked on to the A380 and I don't remember any fanfare when they brought it in but it allowed the airline a relatively cheap breathing space between the 767 retirement and 787 introduction. Its my impression that the B787 not A330 was to replace the B767. In hindsight I think the airline did not count on the financial difficulties plaguing not only QF but the industry as a whole ( in last few years dating back to the GFC) and the delays with the B787 introduction (whether airline financials or manufacturer delays) has I think made the A330 an astute/lucky acquisition whether by lease or otherwise.

And avoided the issues surrounding "version 1" of the B787

 

[whughes3]

I am guessing that while the 332s are meant to have the longer range of the two (332/333), their smaller cabin floor area means the airline has much less flexibility with configuring them. Creating a configuration for longer haul flights would mean they would be far too un-dense for domestic flights, which they would have been planned to do for more than half of their time...

There is no reason why a subset of the 332's could not have been configured in "international" format, as was the case before the refurbs, leaving the majority suitable for domestic routes.